THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICENTE ORENDAIN AND MARIA, OLARTE, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga, sentencing each of the appellants, for the crime of estafa through
falsification of a public document, to serve twelve years of prisidn mayor, with
the accessory penalties, to pay a fine of 12,500 pesetas, and suffer perpetual
disqualification from holding any public office.

The facts out of which this prosecution arose may be summarized as follows:

Raymunda Toribio, over 74 years of age, is the common law wife of Gualberto
Saavedra. In the month of June 1930, she and Gualberto were living on a small
tract of land in the barrio of Manicahan, municipality of Bolong, Province of
Zamboanga, which embraced lots Nos. 648, 649, 682, 1041 and 1642. In the
cadastral survey of 1923, lots Nos. 648 and 1642 were adjudged to Raymunda
Toribio as widow; Nos. 649 and 682 were adjudged to Raymunda Toribio as the wife
of Gualberto Saavedra, and lot No. 1041 was adjudged to the spouses Gualberto
Saavedra and Raymunda Toribio.

In May 1930, the appellant Vicente Orendain was appointed notary public for
the municipality of Bolong and since June 18, 1930, has been serving as such. On
June 25, 1930, he prepared and took acknowledgments to three deeds of sale,
signed by Raymunda Toribio and her husband, conveying to their only daughter,
Maria Olarte, for a recited consideration of Pi and “for other considerations”,
said lots Nos. 649, 682 and 1041. On June 30, 1930, in similar manner and for
the same considerations, Raymunda Toribio conveyed lots Nos. 648 and 1642 to her
daughter, Maria Olarte.

Upon the representation of Raymunda Toribio that her daughter and the notary
told her said conveyances were powers of attorney, the fiscal filed three
informations (Nos. 3630, 3631 and 3678) against the appellants, charging estafa
through falsification of a public document; No. 3630, the case on appeal,
related to lots Nos. 648 and 1642 conveyed on June 30, 1930, as aforesaid; No.
3631 related to lot No. 1041 conveyed on June 25, 1930; and case No. 3678
related to lot No. 682 conveyed on June 25, 1930.

There was a private prosecutor in the three cases both before the justice of.
the peace and the Court of First Instance. Case No. 3630, here on appeal, was
tried in April, 1931, and the defendants were convicted; case No. 3631 was tried
in July, 1931, and the defendants were acquitted; thereafter, case No. 3678 was
dismissed on the motion of the fiscal for lack of evidence.

We find it difficult to reconcile the final results in these three cases
which arose on practically the same set of facts. The deed involved in case No.
3630 in which the defendants were convicted, was executed at the same place
between the same parties, for the same consideration, under identically the same
circumstances and in identically the same form as the deed involved in case No.
3631, in which the defendants, upon full trial, were acquitted. Nor can we
reconcile the guilt of the defendant in the first case mentioned with the action
of the fiscal in dismissing the complaint in case No. 3678 which involved a deed
made on the same date between the same parties, for the same consideration and
under identical circumstances and in the same form as the deed involved in the
case in which the defendants were convicted.

It satisfactorily appears from the evidence that Raymunda Toribio, having had
some misunderstanding with her common law husband, wished by some means to cut
him out from any interest in her property upon her death, and said conveyances
were part of her general plan. Before these defendants had any connection with
the matter, she went to the register of deeds, taking her certificates of title
with her, and asked him to eliminate therefrom the name of Gualberto Saavedra,
and the register of deeds advised her to consult an attorney. It appears clearly
that the old lady desired to place the said lots in the control of her only
daughter, the defendant Maria Olarte, and so informed the notary. He, doubtless,
believed that the surest plan of accomplishing what the old lady desired was to
make an outright gift of the said lots to her daughter for a nominal
consideration; and that, doubtless, was a more effectual plan for carrying out
her express purpose, than a mere power of attorney to manage her property which
would terminate on her death. Had the defendant Maria Olarte intended to swindle
her mother, and had the notary suggested the fraudulent scheme of a sale, they
would not have recited a consideration of P1, which is grossly inadequate on its
face. As to at least one of the deeds, the evidence is uncontradicted that the
same was read to Raymunda Toribio and her husband before their signatures.
Raymunda Toribio testified that the defendants told “her the conveyances were
“poderes” and the prosecution rests wholly, on the theory that the old lady
believed she was signing “poderes” and not “ventas”. But, if we disregard the
technical legal terms, which doubtless Raymunda Toribio did not understand, the
fact is that the conveyances accomplished what she desired to accomplish.

We doubt that any great weight should be given to the testimony of Raymunda
Toribio in view of the fact that when she was asked if she had not been
arrested, tried and convicted for murder in Iloilo, and she was required by the
court to answer the question over the objection of the private prosecutor, she
replied “No recuerdo” (I do not remember).

Upon the whole case we entertain such grave doubt,of the’guilt of the
defendants that the judgment below must be reversed, and the defendants
acquitted, with costs to the appellants de oficio.

Avanceña, C. J., Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Villa-Real, Abad
Santos, Hull, Vickers, and Imperial, JJ., concur.